Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for
use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized
planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of
the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage"
of socialism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds
(socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
(communism).

The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for
quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical.
On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is
not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.

Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of
heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of
everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of
people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work
because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and
because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.

Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive
forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the
people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.

It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism,
that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist
advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate
communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can
only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as
their goal the establishment of socialism.

Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties?
Yes, there are.

The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are
in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the
state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with
workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the
process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as
individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.
Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist
machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own
new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no
opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to
crush capitalist resistance when it arises.

The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the
transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character
of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist
state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist
class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in
the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the
working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up
its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework
of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of
their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the
Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the
Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in
socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the
Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built
socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.

Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want
more people to have more private property than ever before.

There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal
in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the
kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means
of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to
produce the consumer’s goods which are.

Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g.
your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private
property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away
private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be
much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part
of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of
profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more
suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.

More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for
oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.